Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has previously said Israel should be wiped off the map, also told a cheering crowd of students in Indonesia's capital that the Jewish state "cannot continue and one day will vanish."

I swear this guy has something to say every day now. In another article, it discusses how the recent letter (an invitation to Islam essentially) the Iranian president sent to Bush as being a possible precursor to war, Islamic style (with an End Times twist!):

The second article wrote:

Based on precedent, Adams continued, he expects the next step will be for Iran to make the invitation public. Then the "crimes" of the U.S. will be published and the grievances will be cited at Friday prayers in mosques. Finally, comes
a fatwa, amounting to a declaration of war.

"We must prepare ourselves to rule the world and the only way to do that is to put forth views on the basis of the Expectation of the Return," Ahmadinejad said. "If we work on the basis of the Expectation of the Return [of the Mahdi], all the affairs of
our nation will be streamlined and the administration of the country will become easier."

﻿Bear in mind that WorldNetDaily is a right-wing news source, they rely on these kinds of speculations to drive up visitor counts... I'd say this article is scaremongering, but has a point anyway.

True. There are even a lot of articles over there that are nothing more than sly pitches for books. In this case, however, I am beginning to sense there really is an agenda here for the Iranian prez. It seems to be a little bigger than just trying to prop up
his status at home with the public. Then again, I know several of the leaders in that part of the world rely on a lot of bluster in their speeches. The first Gulf War is a great example of this with comments that it was going to be "the Mother of All Battles",
etc.

W3bbo wrote:Bear in mind that
WorldNetDaily is a right-wing news source, they rely on these kinds of speculations to drive up visitor counts... I'd say this article is scaremongering, but has a point anyway.

True. There are even a lot of articles over there that are nothing more than sly pitches for books. In this case, however, I am beginning to sense there really is an agenda here for the Iranian prez. It seems to be a little bigger than just trying to prop up
his status at home with the public. Then again, I know several of the leaders in that part of the world rely on a lot of bluster in their speeches. The first Gulf War is a great example of this with comments that it was going to be "the Mother of All Battles",
etc.

Well, now that I look at it in more detail, the WND article is completely wrong.

Let's remember a few things: Iran's government has a fatwa prohibiting the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons and the president has made sworn promises never to use them. So I think we can trust them on that.... if he ever broke those oaths
he'd be ousted ASAP.

And the letter itself doesn't ask President Bush to convert to Islam or anything like Osama's proclamations. I genuinely believe that whilst Iran's president is a bit of a nut-job and wants Israel gone, he isn't actually going to do anything. He's got 4 years
of Presidency, so he's going to make the best of it.

Although the whole "Mahdi" thing is a little spooky, I'll read up on that later.

EDIT:

Okay, I've done the obligatory Wikipeding and WDN is clearly misinformed about the Mahdi and the Iranian President is clearly misguided.

I think you'd better put that bunker kit away until we see a big red fire in the sky over Baghdad....
oh wait.

W3bbo wrote:﻿Bear in mind that
WorldNetDaily is a right-wing news source, they rely on these kinds of speculations to drive up visitor counts... I'd say this article is scaremongering, but has a point anyway.

So what if WND is rightwing. Did the Iranian President say the things that he did? Yes.

And excuse me for laughing at your "I spent two minutes on Wikipedia and so now I know everything about the Iranian intention"

Could be worse - could assume the word "fatwa" means precursor to declaration of war. Even the word "jihad" doesnt mean war - its just been siezed on by scaremongers like this.

W3bbo wrote:﻿Bear in mind that
WorldNetDaily is a right-wing news source, they rely on these kinds of speculations to drive up visitor counts... I'd say this article is scaremongering, but has a point anyway.

So what if WND is rightwing. Did the Iranian President say the things that he did? Yes.

And excuse me for laughing at your "I spent two minutes on Wikipedia and so now I know everything about the Iranian intention"

Could be worse - could assume the word "fatwa" means precursor to declaration of war. Even the word "jihad" doesnt mean war - its just been siezed on by scaremongers like this.

Using the common meaning of a word is a scare mongering tactic?
Words can have multiple meanings, with some meanings being commonly prevalent over another, pick up a dictionary some time.

The problem with WND is that since it is a right wing source, it is biased. If you would like to say that WND is not biased, then that is one thing, but by definition, calling something right wing or left wing implies bias.

Wikipedia, provides a summary, and sure, years of study may provide more insight, however at this point, it is good enough.

Further, it is unbiased in general. Why do I say this? Because, its content is based on multiple sources and it can be reedited repeatedly. So, either all sides have had the opportunity to say their peace about the issue, or some sides aren't represented.
(Why? Apathy? Ignorance? Lack of credibility?)

I hate arguing with you people. Again. Over the same damn topic, but if we allow "The End is Nigh" crowd to do all the propaganda, we may never avoid another pointless conflict. I'll waste all day if I must to save the time, money, and lives that will be
lost.

﻿The problem with WND is that since it is a right wing source, it is biased. If you would like to say that WND is not biased, then that is one thing, but by definition, calling something right wing or left wing implies bias.

Wikipedia, provides a summary, and sure, years of study may provide more insight, however at this point, it is good enough.

Further, it is unbiased in general. Why do I say this? Because, its content is based on multiple sources and it can be reedited repeatedly. So, either all sides have had the opportunity to say their peace about the issue, or some sides aren't represented.
(Why? Apathy? Ignorance? Lack of credibility?)

I hate arguing with you people. Again. Over the same damn topic, but if we allow "The End is Nigh" crowd to do all the propaganda, we may never avoid another pointless conflict. I'll waste all day if I must to save the time, money, and lives that will be
lost.

Either that, or post a photocopy of your enlistment paperwork.

Agreed, but on the other hand, erring on the side of caution and educated rationilzation seems like a logical approach to most topics.

﻿The problem with WND is that since it is a right wing source, it is biased. If you would like to say that WND is not biased, then that is one thing, but by definition, calling something right wing or left wing implies bias.

Wikipedia, provides a summary, and sure, years of study may provide more insight, however at this point, it is good enough.

Further, it is unbiased in general. Why do I say this? Because, its content is based on multiple sources and it can be reedited repeatedly. So, either all sides have had the opportunity to say their peace about the issue, or some sides aren't represented.
(Why? Apathy? Ignorance? Lack of credibility?)

I hate arguing with you people. Again. Over the same damn topic, but if we allow "The End is Nigh" crowd to do all the propaganda, we may never avoid another pointless conflict. I'll waste all day if I must to save the time, money, and lives that will be
lost.

Either that, or post a photocopy of your enlistment paperwork.

If I "argued" the way you did I would probably hate arguing with me too. My favorite was when you said how the mean and nasty US had no busy telling Iran it cant have nukes.. and then I responded stating the NPT treaty grants the US to keep nukes and that
the treaty prohibits Iran from doing so because Iran signed the treaty and that violations of NPT get referred to the UN Sec Council, so yeah it is our business , we do have a right to tell Iran not to make nukes and we can keep ours.

ScanIAm wrote:﻿The problem with WND is that since it is a right wing source, it is biased. If you would like to say that WND is not biased, then that is one thing, but by definition, calling something right wing or left wing implies
bias.

Wikipedia, provides a summary, and sure, years of study may provide more insight, however at this point, it is good enough.

Further, it is unbiased in general. Why do I say this? Because, its content is based on multiple sources and it can be reedited repeatedly. So, either all sides have had the opportunity to say their peace about the issue, or some sides aren't represented.
(Why? Apathy? Ignorance? Lack of credibility?)

I hate arguing with you people. Again. Over the same damn topic, but if we allow "The End is Nigh" crowd to do all the propaganda, we may never avoid another pointless conflict. I'll waste all day if I must to save the time, money, and lives that will be
lost.

Either that, or post a photocopy of your enlistment paperwork.

If I "argued" the way you did I would probably hate arguing with me too. My favorite was when you said how the mean and nasty US had no busy telling Iran it cant have nukes.. and then I responded stating the NPT treaty grants the US to keep nukes and that
the treaty prohibits Iran from doing so because Iran signed the treaty and that violations of NPT get referred to the UN Sec Council, so yeah it is our business , we do have a right to tell Iran not to make nukes and we can keep ours.

And your response was something like "F you".

So yeah, I can see why you hate it. Cuz I TROUNCED YOU factually.

lol.

My response was due to your statement that we should drop a nuke on mecca. Please don't rewrite history any more than you've already done. At that point, it was useless to argue with you. We'll try again, but keep it in your pants. "Bomb Iran" isn't a discussion.

The NPT does, indeed, require a number of things, none of which have been violated by Iran.

Further, Iran is expressly allowed to build nuclear facilities for the production of energy under the NPT. The IAEA have found no evidence, whatsoever, that Iran is working on nuclear weapons and there appears to be a fatwa expressly forbidding this within
it's clerical groups.

Iran is surrounded on all sides by nuclear powers. Of course Iran is working towards having nuclear weapons in the same way that the USA continues to have nuclear weapons. Who the hell are you to tell them they can't? They don't need your permission
nor did they ask for it.

Which, I believe, is what prompted the response about the NPT. Who was rewriting history again?

ScanIAm wrote:Iran is surrounded on all sides by nuclear powers. Of course Iran is working towards having nuclear weapons in the same way that the USA continues to have nuclear weapons. Who the hell are you to tell them they can't?
They don't need your permission nor did they ask for it.

Which, I believe, is what prompted the response about the NPT. Who was rewriting history again?

You almost got me, but you are taking it out of context and missing a few other posts in between. Let's recap:

pacelvi wrote:

If I "argued" the way you did I would probably hate arguing with me too. My favorite was when you said how the mean and nasty US had no busy telling Iran it cant have nukes.. and then I responded stating the NPT treaty grants the US to keep nukes and that
the treaty prohibits Iran from doing so because Iran signed the treaty and that violations of NPT get referred to the UN Sec Council, so yeah it is our business , we do have a right to tell Iran not to make nukes and we can keep ours.

And your response was something like "F you".

So yeah, I can see why you hate it. Cuz I TROUNCED YOU factually.

lol.

lol, indeed.

My response in this thread to his mention of the NPT went on for a number of other posts until he decided that nuking mecca was a good idea.

The "F you" occurs as the very last post in the thread, although I think I said it better.

Take a look, you'll see.

I'll wait.

I'm sorry we don't agree, I personally, feel that Iran should be allowed to pursue any kind of defense it wishes within its own borders. It's a sovereign nation with elected leaders. Officially, my country may not agree with my opinion, but hey, check it
out, it's my right to differ.

Hmm, nope. You never responded to the NPT rebuttal. Instead you focused on the nuke over mecca thing (whatever that was all about). In any case, out of context or not (although I don't know what context would change the meaning of what you said) the NPT
directly contradicts your implication that nobody has the right to tell Iran they can't develop nuclear weapons.

﻿Hmm, nope. You never responded to the NPT rebuttal. Instead you focused on the nuke over mecca thing (whatever that was all about). In any case, out of context or not (although I don't know what context would change the meaning of what you said) the NPT
directly contradicts your implication that nobody has the right to tell Iran they can't develop nuclear weapons.

Yeah, I guess you're right.

You win.

Boy, you got me.

Now what.

Oh, yeah, the NPT doesn't actually forbid Iran from working on a nuclear energy program.

Further, it is MY OPINION that the NPT is a crock since it pretty much says: "We've got em, and you can't have em".

Even further, 3 states in the middle east, 2 of which are nuclear powers, and 1 is suspected of it, declined to sign. Frankly, if I was the leader of a sovereign nation in the middle east, I'd be getting my hands on any kind of defense possible.

So, just to clarify, I'll say this again: "Who are you to say who can and can not have nuclear weapons?" And by YOU I mean you, the person. The NPT is a crock.

See, this way, there won't be any confusion and we won't have to derail the thread for recordkeeping.

Blackheart wrote:Hmm, nope. You never responded to the NPT rebuttal. Instead you focused on the nuke over mecca thing (whatever that was all about). In any case, out of context or not (although I don't know what context would change
the meaning of what you said) the NPT directly contradicts your implication that nobody has the right to tell Iran they can't develop nuclear weapons.

Yeah, I guess you're right.

You win.

Boy, you got me.

Now what.

Oh, yeah, the NPT doesn't actually forbid Iran from working on a nuclear energy program.

Further, it is MY OPINION that the NPT is a crock since it pretty much says: "We've got em, and you can't have em".

Even further, 3 states in the middle east, 2 of which are nuclear powers, and 1 is suspected of it, declined to sign. Frankly, if I was the leader of a sovereign nation in the middle east, I'd be getting my hands on any kind of defense possible.

So, just to clarify, I'll say this again: "Who are you to say who can and can not have nuclear weapons?" And by YOU I mean you, the person. The NPT is a crock.

See, this way, there won't be any confusion and we won't have to derail the thread for recordkeeping.

Heh, no need to get your panties in a bunch. I was simply pointing out what was said in the discussion, not what you wish you would've said.

Blackheart wrote:Hmm, nope. You never responded to the NPT rebuttal. Instead you focused on the nuke over mecca thing (whatever that was all about). In any case, out of context or not (although I don't know what context would change
the meaning of what you said) the NPT directly contradicts your implication that nobody has the right to tell Iran they can't develop nuclear weapons.

Yeah, I guess you're right.

You win.

Boy, you got me.

Now what.

Oh, yeah, the NPT doesn't actually forbid Iran from working on a nuclear energy program.

Further, it is MY OPINION that the NPT is a crock since it pretty much says: "We've got em, and you can't have em".

Even further, 3 states in the middle east, 2 of which are nuclear powers, and 1 is suspected of it, declined to sign. Frankly, if I was the leader of a sovereign nation in the middle east, I'd be getting my hands on any kind of defense possible.

So, just to clarify, I'll say this again: "Who are you to say who can and can not have nuclear weapons?" And by YOU I mean you, the person. The NPT is a crock.

See, this way, there won't be any confusion and we won't have to derail the thread for recordkeeping.

Heh, no need to get your panties in a bunch. I was simply pointing out what was said in the discussion, not what you wish you would've said.